Back to Top

Monthly Archives: June 2014

Are you watching Emma Approved? The people who brought you the wildly popular Lizzie Bennet Diaries and the ill-conceived Welcome to Sanditon have taken on Jane Austen’s Emma and are 56 web episodes into a modernization of the story. Although I don’t feel Emma Approved has the appeal of the Lizzie Bennet Diaries, it’s doing a pretty good job of moving the story into the 21st Century.  There’s a good cast. Alex Knightley is pretty fanciable.  Maddie Bates is hilarious. Harriet Smith is an excellent combination of shy and aspirational (and I’m waiting for Robert Martin to come back).

The sticking point for me is Emma Woodhouse. I know she’s a character of whom Jane Austen said, “I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like.” If I recall my first reading of the book, I thought she was right. I didn’t like Emma very much. But she grew on me, through the course of the book and through each subsequent reading. I’ll admit that she’s not Jane Austen’s most likable heroine. I’m guessing that’s Lizzy Bennet (raise your hands). Apart of Lady Susan, whom we really can’t identify as a heroine, she might very well the least likable. (Although my vote here goes to Marianne Dashwood.)

But Emma Approved Emma is not really growing on me. Perhaps its because she’s too perky. Perhaps it’s because she hasn’t been brought low yet. Perhaps its the actress. I really want to like her. I like what’s being done with this adaptation. I keep watching in the hope that she’ll pull it out yet (and because I think Alex Knightley is adorable). So… what about you? Are you watching? Does it work for you? Do you have reservations? Have you seen the preceding Web series (I refuse to call them “webisodes.)

dedicationI’m always interested in the keywords used to describe books. Having already talked about what “sweet” means with regard to Regencies, I’m moving on to “traditional”.

There are various explanations of how traditional Regencies differ from Regency-set historical romance.

Traditional Regencies are short. But some of the older ones were 80,000 words or more, especially those published as Super Regencies.

Traditional Regencies are “sweet.” There are many exceptions, including some books by the Riskies. Sweet historical romance also exists.

Traditional Regencies depict the world of the Regency as described by Jane Austen and/or Georgette Heyer. True to a degree, but neither of them ever included paranormal elements like vampires. Or time travel. Or Greek deities who take a mischievous role in the characters’ love lives.

vampireTraditional Regencies are historically accurate. Not always! I’ve heard there was a Zebra Regency that included photography as if it were in common use. I’ve also read traditional Regencies with errors in titles, fox hunting in the summer, etc…, and many that seem to rely almost entirely on Georgette Heyer for background information. Although we know she did meticulous work, the sensibility in her books is largely Victorian.

One other point is that many authors of Regency-set historical romance do extensive research (I do!) although they may incorporate aspects of the setting that were not seen in books by Jane Austen or Georgette Heyer.

Traditional Regencies are light and witty “comedies of manners”. There were some pretty angsty traditional Regencies, dealing with substance abuse, PTSD and other serious themes.

rakeSo even while some of these traits often describe traditional Regencies, it seems to me that the only simple definition is those books published in the traditional Regency lines. Of course, now there are indie authors and specialty lines who publish what are generally agreed to be “traditional” Regencies.

jewelThe only definition I’ve been able to come up with that makes sense is that in a traditional Regency, the Regency setting is more consistently emphasized, described in detail (even if the detail may be incorrect or copied from Georgette Heyer), and that the setting often takes on an importance almost as if it were a secondary character.

So what do you think? What makes a Regency “traditional”?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

For today’s post, I originally planned to write something about murdered gamekeepers in the winter of 1843/44 (this is the backdrop for my current WIP, which starts with the murder of a gamekeeper), but because that’s a rather depressing topic and because I stumbled across something last night that bowled me over, I’m going to talk about something else.

Or rather, someone.

Mr. Shakespeare.

Shakespeare
As you might know, my day job consists of torturing teaching students at Mainz University, and at the moment I’m teaching Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night in one of my classes. One of the problems I always have with teaching a play is that the text doesn’t really come alive until it is performed. I always include a session on the Elizabethan stage, and if I have time enough, I also try to show at least excerpts from one of the many film adaptations of Shakespeare. (And I do like Trevor Nunn’s Twelfth Night with Imogen Stubbs as Viola and the dashing Toby Stephens as Orsino – even though Orsino is a bit of a wet blanket! – and – oh! – the wonderful Ben Kingsley as the fool. I haven’t yet figured out why this adaptation is set in the 19th century, but what the heck!)

So a few weeks ago I was looking for some more detailed info about The Globe, and I checked on YouTube whether I could find something featuring the inside of The Globe. Instead I found a short little film in which David Crystal and his son Ben talk about the pronunciation in Shakespeare’s time. (David Crystal is a linguist who in the eyes of academia has done the unforgivable: He has made his research topics interesting for the unwashed masses. This is generally considered to be A Very Bad Thing.) (Please note the sarcastic tone here. Personally, I think he is rather wonderful, and I heartily recommend his book The Story of English in 100 Words – fascinating stuff!) This is what I found:

(WP is supposed to embed this video, but I haven’t yet managed to embed videos on my own blog. Hmph. So I hope it works here.)

Fascinating, isn’t it?

But it gets even better! Last night I stumbled across this talk by Ben Crystal, where he talks about performing Shakespeare, about developing scenes using the invisible cues within the text itself, and, of course, about the Original Pronunciation.

It’s like… Ooooooh my! Light bulbs!

In the middle of that talk, I had to pause the film and order all of his books on Shakespeare. And then I wrote a quick e-mail to our course administration office and told them I’d like to teach a double dose of drama next term. Including a class on Shakespeare. 🙂

~~~~~

So let’s hear it: Do you have a favourite Shakespeare play? And what’s your favourite film adaptation of Shakespeare?

~~~~~

P.S.: I’m so going to model one of my future heroes on Ben Crystal! 🙂

Due to my own silly scheduling snafu, today’s planned guest post from Alyssa Maxwell (author of the lovely new “Gilded Newport” mystery series!) will run next week.   So, let’s do a giveaway for today instead!  I have been cleaning out boxes of back copies of my older titles (if anyone knows anyplace that needs foreign language copies, let me know!), and need to make some space. 🙂

LadyMidnightCoverSo I will give away one copy of my out-of-print 2005 title Lady Midnight (which will be released as an ebook later this year!).  I loved writing this touch-of-gothic, moors of Yorkshire, governess in disguise story…

From the back cover:

Everyone that Katerina held dear has perished in a tempest off the coast of Italy.  With not a penny to her name, the once-moneyed Venetian lady knows she must travel far to forge a new life.  No one would ever accept her if they knew her mother Lucretia Bruni, an infamous courtesan breeding Katerina to fill her shoes one day…

Still mourning his late wife, Michael Lindley knows life must go on–and that his little sister and daughter need a woman’s nurturing.  When a dark-eyed beauty alights on his doorstep, claiming to be a widowed governess, he feels a fire rekindle in him he thought was snuffed out long ago.  And Katerina, who thought her capacity to love had gone down with the ship, there flares a yearning only Michael can subdue.

But just as they give in to the desire that knows no words, a wealthy enemy plots his revenge…and their newborn passion must undergo the ultimate test…

I loved writing this book (which was an RT Reviewer’s Choice Award nominee!), since I cut my romance writing teeth on stuff like Victoria Holt and Mary Stewart!  I will give away one signed copy to a commenter today.  Who are some of your favorite Gothic authors???

Posted in Giveaways | 9 Replies

1200px-The_Duchess_of_Richmond's_Ball_by_Robert_Alexander_HillingfordI am down to the last week before my current WIP will (hopefully!) be done and am getting close to the Battle of Waterloo. My hero and heroine are both in Brussels and are planning to attend the Duchess of Richmond’s Ball, that famous ball that took place the evening that Wellington learned that Napoleon was on the march in Belgium. So I’ve been immersing myself in Waterloo Youtube videos and reading about the ball.

Did you know for years the actual location of the ball was the subject of debate? It was long thought to have taken place in the Hotel de Ville in the Grand Place in Brussels, not because there was any evidence to that fact, though.

Other locations suggested were the Duke of Richmond’s coach house and stables. In the Illustrated London News in the mid-nineteenth century, the location of the ball was listed as being at the Maison du Roi, the king’s palace, a grand location, but, again, totally false.

Henry-Nelson-O'Neil_Before-Waterloo_1868

The true location is described by a very credible source–The Duchess’s daughter who was present at the ball.

She says:

My mother’s now famous ball took place in a large room on the ground floor, on the left of the entrance, connected with the rest of the house by an anteroom. It had been used by the coach builder, from whom the house was hired, to put carriages in, but it was papered before we came there; and I recollect the paper — a trellis pattern with roses. My sisters used the room as a schoolroom, and we used to play battledore and shuttlecock there on a wet day.*

The house the Richmonds rented was on the Rue de la Blanchisserie, so named because a laundry once existed on the site. Wellington used to refer to the residence as “the Wash House,” which he thought was pretty funny and the Duchess of Richmond, a prickly sort of woman, didn’t. In any event, her daughter’s description was pretty clear that it wasn’t any of those other places.

For a beautiful description of the ball, see Amanda’s 2008 Risky Regencies blog

By the way, in my YouTube viewing I discovered two other pretty blatant errors. In one video, they stated the date of the Battle of Waterloo to be July 18, 1815 instead of June 18 (who am I to remark upon that? My book Chivalrous Captain, Rebel Mistress contained the same mistake, a typo, in my case). Another video kept calling Wellington the “future Duke of Wellington,” but he received that title in 1814 after Napoleon’s first abdication.

And while we are on the subject, I am ALL ENVY at Susanna’s plans to attend the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo!!!

*from The Duchess of Richmond’s Ball 15 June 1815 by David Miller

Have you come across any grievous historical errors lately?

Follow
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com